We may not know exactly where the particle is, but we are certain that the particle is somewhere just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't somewhere, that was my argument. — TogetherTurtle

This is a difficult question. When I listen to physicians I get the impression that the uncertainty is really attributed to nature itself like: the particle there is really some "potential" to manifest as a particle there.

What do you think about? — Belter

I guess some propositions are wrong. Saying a simulation in the future is equally likely and unlikely does not take the specifics into account - we'd have to develop such a system. No idea what the odds are objectively, but saying that a-priori it is equally likely that we succeed or fail in doing so is just... unbelievable.
One has to make up mind on this. Either one decides that given enough time such a system can be built or not. With the unquestionable universal superiority of the human race in mind we can say for sure that we could easily do so. But - would we? Again this is not flipping a coin. Think about it

The answer is always yes or no, even in quantum physics, the answer may change upon observation, but it is always either yes or no at one given time, no matter if it fluctuates. — TogetherTurtle

In QP you get answers like "maybe" if you ask if a particle is exactly at a given spot.
On the other hand the subject here is philosophy and hence the human condition. I'm not yet sure how that sentence contradicts human freedom but I am sure it does...

I guess the Turing-test is much too technical. Over the procedure the main point is forgotten: There is no self-conscious AI until it proves itself to be one.

read Heidegger...
There seems to be something special about it if one can make a difference between "a human" and "a human being". What is it that gets emphasized? This is not to say your definition was wrong nor that I'd think this should really make a difference in this context (aside for the sake of the argument).